Evidence that Rodney Hide sent “dodgy texts” to a young woman, or was putting an allegation of sexual harassment out there just acceptable collateral damage? I think that’s a perfectly legitimate question to ask of Hager, whether you like Hide or not. And given Slater’s rather irregular relationship with the truth, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope Hager did some due diligence on what he decided to publish.
Hager's book is about the political machinations of these players. If they, in their own communications, outline this plan then that is the story that Hager is telling.
Should he have not included the story of this apparent serious interference in the leadership of another political party because to do so would be exposing a unverifiable claim about the leader of that party?
Is it true that Hager might be forced to reveal his source, because it’s a book not news?
Well in the case of Fisher's Dotcom book it was rule that journalistic protection didn't apply because it was a book, so potentially.
But if I understand it correctly Hager claims not to know the source - that the information arrived anonymously in the post on a USB flash drive. That's a pretty solid dead end for anyone trying to force information from him.
Picking Finney as their speed reader was just insane really. I mean his entire livelihood is dependent on maintaining a good relationship with government - his interest could hardly be more conflicted unless he were actually named in the book.
In Korea. Or is it Israel?
Yeah, that's bloody weird. In his initial post about the book he definitely said he'd just arrived in Israel. Now it reads Korea.
It seems hard to confuse the two - could it have been some sort of crazy Autocorrect freakout if he was writing on his cellphone?
I was particularly impressed by The Paul Henry Show's choice of speed-reading reviewer... A lobbyist. An excellent choice for an impartial review...
Oh yay, theft analogies.
How about if the person makes a duplicate of whatever he finds and leaves the original behind?
Blah blah blah... The point is that the law is worded in such a way that makes it reasonably arguable that accessing content on a computer that's clearly not intended to be access by you could be considered unauthorised access, or 'hacking' in broad terms.
Even without taking everything, or just taking copies (somehow) the act of entering a property even without 'breaking in' would still be burglary... so the taking is not really the issue.
I’d be much more comfortable if the focus is on the new aspect not the old ‘hacking’ allegation.
Yeah, that's the problem with the story really. Media love a "hacking" story it's a lot easier to fit in a 4-second-tease than "Prime Minister's staff advised and coordinated with blogger to identify and release poorly secured files"
But they were surely justified in 2011 then? If so, why was that not done then?
Because, I'm guessing, at the time it seemed like a relatively minor story, was in the run up to the election and ultimately Slater was the only target for prosecution if Labour had laid a complaint. One thing that's clear is that Slater loves a fight - he plays the political martyr card very well.
Now with the implication of the Prime Minister's office - well the motivation for dragging the matter before the courts could be quite different for Labour.
Wow. I don’t know why. I’ve always assumed he’s a hack through and through, given his very close and well known ties to National.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am a Labour LEC chair and running an electorate campaign).
I'm totally willing to accept that people have honestly held political views that differ from my own. Far more so that Slater, Farrar has been willing to criticise National on matters where he has a clear difference of opinion. That's never seemed to be the case with Slater.
Beyond that I've know Farrar online for way too long, met him on a few occasions and even eaten dinner with him in the IRC/Usenet days long before Kiwiblog. He just seemed pretty straight up.
Also had him as a guest on the Discourse Podcast a couple of times and again, while having different political views to me he's always seemed pretty reasonable. I guess I just kind of want to like him somehow :)
Is this a not-very-clever way of saying rooting around the web server? Or is there actual allegations that individual computers were hacked into?
Anyone up to that point in the book yet?
I'm going to assume at this stage that it's basically the web-server exploring that Slater himself documented in his videos from June 2011